Archive for the ‘Specter’ Category

“The president is well aware of what happened, when a number of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster,” Specter added, referring to Senate Democrats’ success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush’s conservative judicial picks. “… And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.”

“Contrary to press accounts, I did not warn the President about anything and was very respectful of his Constitutional authority on the appointment of federal judges.

“As the record shows, I have supported every one of President Bush’s nominees in the Judiciary Committee and on the Senate floor. I have never and would never apply any litmus test on the abortion issue and, as the record shows, I have voted to confirm Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice O’Connor, and Justice Kennedy and led the fight to confirm Justice Thomas.

Some people are interpreting this as a flip-flop, but if you read Specter’s words carefully, he is warning Bush about what the Democrats will do to obstruct his nominations. Pro-choice Democrats actually supported Specter for strategic reasons, because they thought it would help to have a pro-choice chair of the Judiciary Committee. The reason I supported Hoeffel is because, from day one, Specter was trying to have it both ways: he was pro-choice, but supported all the President’s judicial nominations. There really is no point in believing in anything if you aren’t going to actually stand up and support it.

A long time ago, Specter used to be a Democrat but changed party affiliation for political expediency. The message of his campaign was that he has “clout”, which just means he can get pork projects for Pennsylvania. Specter isn’t really pro-choice. He isn’t pro-life either. Specter doesn’t actually stand for anything. And that’s a shame, because considering that this will probably be his last term in the Senate, he could actually be the voice of moderation in the Republican Party that he imagines he could be.

There is a lot of attention paid to Specter’s liberal-moderate past, very little on his Senate record, and absolutely nothing about the past six years.

Based on the article, you’d think that Jim Clymer didn’t want to be in the debate and was only there because Joe Hoeffel pressured him into it. What was the Specter campaign’s opinion? Why not write that they fought it? Or did they encourage it too? If so, why not mention it?

Most importantly, the article focuses on biographical differences and completely ignores any policy differences. It actually serves to confuse the issues, because it emphasizes Specter’s humble beginnings and Hoeffel’s prep school education, giving the wrong impression about what kind of policies the candidates actually support.

If you’ve got a moment, write to the P-G and let them know we are running out of time to see some more substantive campaign coverage.

On the email list, Rebecca documents the relative clout of Arlen Specter and Joe Hoeffel:

I was in the crowd of 50 or so who welcomed Joe outside Pittsburgh’s WTAE-TV this morning where the debate with Arlen Specter was being taped. Long after we arrived a tiny contingent of Specter supporters appeared.

Their 15 or so members covered the age spectrum from 20-24, included every sex but female, and every ethnic group but black, asian, or hispanic! (Apparently only the local chapter of College Republicans could be bothered to show up.)

You can watch the debate at 7 p.m. tonight if you get PCN (Cable) or at 11:30 p.m. tonight on WTAE (Broadcast channel 4). Other times and stations are listed on Hoeffel’s website.

Arlen Specter once again shows his true Republican colors by airing an attack ad which distorts Joe Hoeffel’s record on — what else? — national security. Specter thinks Hoeffel is weak on security because he didn’t vote for superfluous amendments to spending bills.

While the amendments have regularly passed in the House, Hoeffel has voted against them every time.

“The president has never asked for the authority to use the armed services domestically,” the Democrat said. “If [the Joint Chiefs of Staff] or he did, I would certainly consider it and support it if circumstances warranted.

“What I have voted against is catchy little amendments that [Congress] members offer to get publicity. They pass because members are afraid of TV ads like this.”

Such amendments to defense appropriation bills have not been introduced in the Senate, but Specter does support deploying the military along the borders, according to his campaign manager, Christopher Nicholas.

Hoeffel has yet to run a negative commercial. The challenger’s only television commercial to air so far deals exclusively with his own record.

This is appropriate for Specter, since the message of his campaign is that, since he is so old, he has the “clout” to direct more pork to Pennsylvania. (Hoeffel is never hesitant to point out that it’s not much help to get federal money to renovate the bridge that goes to where your local manufacturing plant used to be.)

After receiving the coroner’s endorsement, Specter went to the Duquesne Club, where fellow Sens. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Gordon Smith, R-Ore., appeared at a $1,000-a-person fund-raiser for the four-term incumbent.

Craig, who is anti-abortion, reminded the audience that a re-elected Specter would become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, just in time for the nominations of as many as three new Supreme Court justices.

“Wouldn’t it be wonderful … if the man who chairs that committee … were Arlen Specter? That’s why I’m here,” said Craig, also a Judiciary Committee member.

Specter, though, is pro-choice.

Can anyone explain to me why anybody believes that Specter is really pro-choice? He approved every single one of Bush’s judicial nominees. He may be a voice of moderation on other issues, but voices of moderation in today’s GOP are ignored.

Folks, just because Specter says he is pro-choice doesn’t make him pro-choice. Voting with NARAL only 21 percent of the time does not make you pro-choice.